Sponsor seeks disclosure of material financial incentives to patients; medical groups warn federal law already addresses kickbacks

House Bill 1335 would require health‑care providers to disclose to patients when they receive a substantive financial incentive tied to a treatment, device, or product, with exemptions for ordinary compensation and modest transfers of value. Representative Bob Wary said the measure echoes conflict‑of‑interest disclosure practices in research and would improve informed consent in everyday clinical care.

Witnesses from the New Hampshire Medical Society urged the committee to hold the bill for further study or to reject it as drafted. Dr. Marie Ramos argued federal anti‑kickback statutes, Stark rules and the federal Sunshine Act already govern many problematic arrangements; she warned that new state reporting requirements risk increasing malpractice exposure, could unintentionally expose protected patient information and would add administrative burdens that worsen physician burnout and reduce access to care.

Supporters including public commenters said a straightforward disclosure obligation would pose little burden for clinicians while improving transparency. Several Senators asked how the bill would interact with existing federal law and whether it would apply unevenly to private practitioners versus clinicians employed by health systems.

Why it matters: the measure aims to address conflicts of interest in clinical settings and to give patients more information at the point of consent. Medical groups cautioned that existing federal enforcement and reporting regimes already cover some conduct, and that poorly drafted state requirements could create complexity and privacy risks.

What’s next: sponsors and opponents signaled willingness to discuss amendments; the committee did not record final action in the excerpt.